whether or not they had consummated the marriage, and that is the well-known position in the school. Yet another report from Mālik states that a marriage contracted by a terminally ill person never becomes binding, even if he regains health before the annulment.

If a man marries while sick and no separation is pronounced until he has clearly recovered, and he later falls ill again and dies while she is still his wife, she inherits from him just like any other spouse.

When the woman is the one who is ill at the time of marriage, the union must be annulled. If he has not consummated with her, she is owed no dower; if consummation has occurred, she receives her full dower, but her husband has no right to inherit from her should she die of that illness.

If an ill man marries a healthy woman, then the man recovers and the wife dies, he is entitled to inherit her estate. The same applies if a sick woman marries a healthy man, the marriage is not annulled until she recovers, and the husband subsequently falls ill and dies: she then receives both her dower and her share of his estate.

The patient whose marriage is impermissible is the one who may dispose of only one-third of his wealth. Nevertheless, a number of scholars in Medina and elsewhere equate the marriage of the sick with that of the healthy, deeming it valid and refusing to annul it.